Practice Advisory, Su Yon Yi and Katherine Brady, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, Burn Statutes and Counterfeit Drug Offenses (2015), see ILRC.org (discussing Matter of Sanchez-Cornejo, 25 I&N Dec. 273 (BIA 2010) (the offense of delivery of a simulated controlled substance in violation of Texas law is not an aggravated felony, as defined by INA 101(a)(43)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(B) (2006), but it is a violation of a law relating to a controlled substance under former INA 241(a)(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 125l(a)(2)(B)(i) (1994))

Nichols v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 1113 (Apr. 4, 2016) (sex offender was not required under the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, 42 U.S.C. 16911(1), 16913(a), (c), to update his registration in Kansas once he left his home and moved to the Philippines, since SORNA did not apply to residents of foreign countries); abrogating United States v. Murphy, 664 F.3d 798 (10th Cir. Dec. 23, 2011). http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-5238_khlo.pdf

Cardona v. Nalls-Castillo, ___ F.Supp.3d ___, 2016 WL 1553430 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2016) (8 U.S.C. 1225(b) authorizes detention of certain arriving aliens, including those who have been convicted of enumerated offenses, during the pendency of their removal proceedings, but does not provide for a bond hearing before an immigration judge).

Practice Advisory " Arizona " Paulus Unidentified Controlled Substance Defense
Two drugs on the Arizona controlled substances schedules are not on the federal list, so the unidentified substance defense and the unlisted substance defense apply. They are Benzylfentanyl and Thenylfentanyl. Thanks to Maris J. Liss.

Welch v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, No. 15-6418 (Apr. 18, 2016) (Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), applies retroactively to invalidate 16(b), no matter when the conviction occurred, because it is a substantive rule of criminal procedure, because it changed the substantive reach of the Armed Career Criminal Act, altering the range of conduct or the class of persons that the [Act] punishes.) (quoting Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 353 (2004)).

Note: This decision has substantial implications for anyone involved in immigration work for clients with criminal histories.

Sauceda v. Lynch, ___ F.3d ___, 2016 WL 1612848 (1st Cir. Apr. 22, 2016) (on rehearing) (Maine conviction for assault on spouse, in violation of Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17"A, 207(1)(A) (intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury or offensive physical contact to another person.), is not necessarily a crime of domestic violence, since the statute is divisible between bodily injury (domestic violence) and offensive physical contact (non-domestic violence)).

United States. v. Garcia-Longoria, ___ F.3d ___, 2016 WL 1658120 (8th Cir. Apr. 27, 2016) (Nebraska conviction for third-degree assaulting a police officer, in violation of Neb.Rev.St. 28"931(1) (intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly cause bodily injury to a police officer), was a crime of violence for purposes of the ACCA, because the presentence report, to which the defendant did not object, reflected a mens rea of intent); see United States v. Ossana, 638 F.3d 895, 900"03 & n. 6 (8th Cir.

Reid v. Donelan,___ F.3d ___, 2016 WL 1458915 (1st Cir. Apr. 13, 2016) (migrants subjected to unreasonable detention through INA 236(c) are entitled to an individualized bond hearing; Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause does not require DHS to bring all detainees before an immigration judge for a bond hearing once they have been locked up for six months).

Note: Every federal court of appeals to examine the mandatory detention statute, INA 236(c), 8 U.S.C.

Matter of J-S-S-, 26 I&N Dec. 679 (BIA 2015) (neither party bears burden of proof in immigration proceedings to establish respondents mentally competence; where indicia of incompetency identified, Immigration Judge should determine competence can be established by a preponderance of the evidence, as a finding of fact).

Matter of Y-S-L-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2015) (conduct by Immigration Judge that is bullying or hostile is inappropriate, and may result in remand to different IJ).